[quote=ET_;103032]From a mathematical point of view, you are assuming some theories not starting from an axiom: AFAIK it is not yet confirmed that homosexuality is a genetic disease. :rolleyes:

Luigi[/quote]

This forum is not noted for snappy answers.
I would be inclined to say homosexuality was largely a result
of environmental pressures. On the other hand, you look at some
blokes/women and say instantly "they bat for the other side".

Who knows.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;103029]
[Quote]
the notion that there are examples (provided by us humans) of machines which give evidence for sudden (and not gradual) design.[/quote]
May I have a specific example of one comparable to the eye, immune system, or bacterial flagellum?[/quote]

Sorry to butt into this argument, but I'd argue the maser is an example of a radically different design of machine that came from essentially nowhere using a physical process (stimulated emission) that had never been exploited before.


Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;103049]Sorry to butt into this argument, but I'd argue the maser is an example of a radically different design of machine that came from essentially nowhere using a physical process (stimulated emission) that had never been exploited before.
[/QUOTE]Another one: Bob Forward's anti-gravity machine.

Paul

[QUOTE=ET_;103032]From a mathematical point of view, you are assuming some theories not starting from an axiom: AFAIK it is not yet confirmed that homosexuality is a genetic disease. :rolleyes: [/QUOTE]

Hmm, disease might not be the best word choice.

I am aware that it is not confirmed as a genetic trait. But if it is, I think one needs to show that it either there is no reduction in the number of offspring or one needs to show there is a compensating survival benefit.

Out of curiosity, I made a simplistic spreadsheet where a gene started in 10% of the population. If the gene had only a small impact on number of offspring, the gene had fallen to 5% of the population in 30 generations.

[quote=xilman;103049]I'd argue the maser is an example of a radically different design of machine that came from essentially nowhere using a physical process (stimulated emission) that had never been exploited before.[/quote]I asked for an example "comparable to the eye, immune system, or bacterial flagellum", not something simple like a maser.

[quote]Another one: Bob Forward's anti-gravity machine.[/quote]I'm not familiar with that. Is it fictional (which wouldn't qualify), or real? If real, is it "comparable to the eye, immune system, or bacterial flagellum" in complexity?

xilman,

Feel free to jump in anytime.

-------------------

cheesehead,

[QUOTE]In those, I was trying (imperfectly) to show how the claim you gave as an example involved personal inability to conceive, i.e. incredulity, and thus were an argument from incredulity. I also pointed out that if the incredulity could be supported by actual proof, then it would not be a logical fallacy.

Perhaps I needed to use a better example, but what was it about those sentences that involved "straw-men characterizations"? I don't understand how your sentences quoted above ("I need merely remark ...") answer that question.[/QUOTE]My response was trying to help you understand that my original response was not an argument from incredulity (and that such is a mischaracterization of my position, as well [I believe] as the position of IDers). I was hoping that you could make the following leaps.

1) You classify irreducible machines where you can find them.
2) Figure out how scientists would theorize such machines are IC, without reducing to incredulity.
3) Now, do the same for biological machines.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;102997]All of them.[/quote]So, you read [URL]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI102.html[/URL] and [URL]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html[/URL]. Then you've seen how I botched up explanation of "irreducible complexity". So I shouldn't have tried to answer that on my own.

But you've also seen the more competent discussion of "irreducible complexity" at those pages. Do you agree with them that "irreducible complexity" does not support Intelligent Design? If not, why?

[quote]Second, as I understand it, the statement of irreducible complexity (as used by Behe) isn't a statement about incredulity[/quote]No, what I mean is that its logical structure (as used by Behe to support the Intelligent Design theory) is the logical structure of argument from incredulity ([URL]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html[/URL]).

[quote]Third, when one is familiar with a subject (such as Behe) they can make educated guesses about the non-existence of something, and it isn't an argument from incredulity as much as an educated guess.[/quote]Okay, but you agree that his educated guess doesn't constitute a proof of Intelligent Design, don't you, particularly in the cases where his educated guess has been shown to be wrong by evolutionists?

[quote]Behe isn't claiming *proof* for his theory, as much as a call for more research on the subject of Darwinian mechanisms in microbiology.[/quote]... and his call has been answered, during the years followed his book's publication, by specific examples from evolutionists which show that evolution is a sufficient theory to explain what Behe claims for Intelligent Design.

[quote]Thus, the notion that there might be intelligent designers elsewhere is not a ludicrous one,[/quote]... but no evidence for existence of such has been shown (without being subsequently refuted, that is).

[quote]or should be [I]a priori[/I] dismiss the idea that some machines we are familiar with in biology are designed and not the result of gradual development.[/quote]A) It hasn't been [I]a priori[/I] dismissed!

B) "the result of gradual development" is not the same as "the result of evolution". Evolution can include sudden change (i.e., a mutation). It's true that most mutations make little change in the organism, but it is always possible that a single mutation can cause very significant change.

None of the IDers'/creationists' arguments that "design" is [I]necessary[/I] have held up. Evolutionists have been able to show that proposed cases are compatible with evolution, and "intelligent design" of biological systems is an unnecessary requirement for explaining them.

- - -

Can you cite any verifiable scientific prediction by Intelligent Design that is not predicted by evolution?

[quote=Zeta-Flux;103060]My response was trying to help you understand that my original response was not an argument from incredulity (and that such is a mischaracterization of my position, as well [I believe] as the position of IDers).[/quote]So, are you or are you not contending that that set of my sentences ("Or, in different wording ... are even slightly changed to be incredible.") involves a "straw-man"? If not, please say so unambiguously. If so, please complete the sentence, "The 'straw man (or men)' in those sentences of yours was (or were) ___"

[quote]I was hoping that you could make the following leaps.
1) You classify irreducible machines where you can find them.
2) Figure out how scientists would theorize such machines are IC, without reducing to incredulity.
3) Now, do the same for biological machines.[/quote]I'll discuss which leaps I could make after you meet my preceding request to clear up the "straw man" aspect.

[quote]But you've also seen the more competent discussion of "irreducible complexity" at those pages. Do you agree with them that "irreducible complexity" does not support Intelligent Design? If not, why?[/quote]I think they've misunderstood aspects of Behe's book, and mischaracterized his position as one from incredulity. I also see a lot of positive and convincing arguments on that website. I am not the kind of person who is readily swayed one way or the other from articles I read on the internet, and so cannot give an opinion whether Behe and others have given a convincing case for IC to support ID.

[quote]No, what I mean is that its logical structure (as used by Behe to support the Intelligent Design theory) is the logical
structure of argument from incredulity
([url]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html)[/url].[/quote]I understood that. And I disagree with your (and the websites) assessment of the logical structure of Behe's argument.

(By the way, would you classify a conjecture in mathematics as an argument from incredulity, and hence a logical fallacy?)

[quote]Okay, but you agree that his educated guess doesn't constitute a proof of Intelligent Design, don't you, particularly in the cases where his educated guess has been shown to be wrong by evolutionists?[/quote]Of course I agree! My requirement might be a bit higher than some others for something to be "shown to be wrong" but I am a scientist. (I also note that Behe himself probably wouldn't claim proof of ID from his work.)

[quote]... and his call has been answered, during the years followed his book's publication, by specific examples from evolutionists which show that evolution is a sufficient theory to explain what Behe claims for Intelligent Design.[/quote]That might be true. I would like it if this information were a little more widespread. Unfortunately, that is the way of science; publish the *real* science in obscure and relatively specialized articles without all the fanfare of "I've proved ID is wrong relative to blood clotting! Love me, love me, love me!". (I understand that there are popular websites claiming to refute ID claims. I just am not qualified to judge the bias in them, or the scientific backing, etc... So, I have to remain undecided on this claim until a time comes when I am convinced, by highly qualified scientists, that Behe's evidenced for ID have been answered by evolution. At the same time, I didn't find Behe's specific arguments all that persuasive to me personally. I just remain open [i]to the possibility[/i].)

[quote]A) It hasn't been a priori dismissed![/quote]In my understanding of things, if an argument is found to be a logical fallacy, one *can* dismiss it [i]a priori[/i] (i.e. before any real science is done) just on the basis of it being a fallacious argument.

Hence, my statement, in context, was saying that I was arguing that certain conjectures are not fallacious.

[quote]So, are you or are you not contending that that set of my sentences ("Or, in different wording ... are even slightly changed to be incredible.") involves a "straw-man"? If not, please say so unambiguously. If so, please complete the sentence, "The 'straw man (or men)' in those sentences of yours was (or were) ___"[/quote]Yes, I was contending that you committed the straw man fallacy. As I said, in the quotation you took from my last post, you mischaracterized my argument as one of incredulity.

[QUOTE=Prime95;103053]Hmm, disease might not be the best word choice.

I am aware that it is not confirmed as a genetic trait. But if it is, I think one needs to show that it either there is no reduction in the number of offspring or one needs to show there is a compensating survival benefit.

Out of curiosity, I made a simplistic spreadsheet where a gene started in 10% of the population. If the gene had only a small impact on number of offspring, the gene had fallen to 5% of the population in 30 generations.[/QUOTE]

You should find that if you have two genotypes of different (but constant) fitness, the change in the relative frequency of each over time should be logistic (evidently, one increases and the other decreases).

Let's put it this way:

No man-made object can be used as a counterexample to "prove" Intelligent Design (where the capitalization refers to the theory that's trying to replace evolution), because all man-made objects are the product of humans, who are a product of evolution. (Hence, a maser does not count.)

In order to use "irreducible complexity" to disprove evolution, one has to show that it _cannot_ have been created by natural means. It is not sufficient to say that no natural means is known.

[quote=Zeta-Flux](By the way, would you classify a conjecture in mathematics as an argument from incredulity, and hence a logical fallacy?)[/quote]The argument from credulity would be to state that [i]there was no way to prove the conjecture without resort to something outside mathematics[/i], but without proving the statement that [i]there was no way to prove the conjecture without resort to something outside mathematics[/i].

[quote]As I said, in the quotation you took from my last post, you mischaracterized my argument as one of incredulity.[/quote]Please quote the exact words to which you refer as your argument.